Julian Assange, convicted computer criminal and founder of the controversial website Wikileaks, was briefly charged with rape by Swedish authorities. The charges have since been dropped, but he's still under investigation on allegations of molestation. (Source: AP)

Assange's packed trip also allowed him to sign a partnership between Sweden's Pirate Party and Wikileaks. Assange says that the two organizations "share many values ". (Source: Torrent Freak)

Wikileaks inks serving deal with Pirate Party, known for its support of illegal downloads

It's been a wild weekend for Sweden and the site Wikileaks.

On Friday Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange, founder and commander in chief of Wikileaks. According to Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office, Mr. Assange had been arrested in absentia and faced raped charges on two separate instances.

Then on Saturday Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne posted an official statement on a government website stating that Mr. Assange is "no longer wanted" and "is not suspected of rape." However, the statement indicates that Mr. Assange is still under investigation on molestation charges.

In Sweden molestation is a sex crime that can apply to nonconsensual sexual contact among adults, as well as with minors (unlike in the U.S., where it typically refers to inappropriate contact with minors). Also, unlike the U.S., the offense is not punishable by prison time.

Sources in the Swedish media said the investigation stems from Mr. Assange's trip to Sweden last week. During that active trip Mr. Assange reportedly had sexual encounters with two women -- aged 20 and 30. Reportedly both encounters were consensual, but Mr. Assange then allegedly engaged in nonconsensual sexual violence. After the women connected and shared their stories, they decided to approach Swedish police. Ironically, Aftonbladet, the tabloid that Mr. Assange recently signed a deal to report for, was the first to publish the 30-year-old's account of the situation.

Mr. Assange on Saturday called the allegations a "dirty" trick. He also appears to have posted on a Wikileaks-affiliated Twitter account, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

While Mr. Assange now seems out of serious legal danger, the allegations are certainly embarrassing for Australian native who now finds himself a hot topic in the Swedish tabloid he recently launched a career with. Mr. Assange has had his share of legal troubles over the years, being a convicted computer criminal in his home country.

Besides signing on to write for Aftonbladet, which may help Wikileaks obtain Swedish journalistic protections, Mr. Assange also found time in his apparently packed trip to sign a pact with Sweden's Pirate Party. The Pirate Party, known for its promotion of currently illegal music, film, and video game piracy, will offer hosting service for Wikileaks.

Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge comments, "I’m delighted that we’re able to help WikiLeaks. I love opportunities to demonstrate that one of the biggest differences between us and the other parties is that we positively leap at any and all changes to take real responsibility for changing the world, rather than just commission reports and avoiding blame like the archetypal politician."

Mr. Assange says that his organization shares much with the Pirate Party. He states, "We welcome the help provided by the Pirate Party. Our organizations share many values and I am looking forward to future ways we can help each other improve the world."

Wikileaks also hopes the Pirate Party will push for more protections for it in Sweden's Parliament. Mr. Assange states, "We hope that the new Parliament will give serious consideration to further strengthening Sweden’s press protection legislation. Western democracies are not always as free as one might think, and freedom of the press needs constant vigilance. In particular, we would welcome Sweden copying Iceland’s Modern Media Initiative, something that the Pirate Party also desires."

Mr. Assange, though, claims that the only solution to eliminating government corruption is complete transparency. He is currently preparing to release more documents, even as the U.S. government reportedly scrambles to protect its Afghani informants from the potentially deadly cost of exposure.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yup. It's like, as a society, we no longer have the ability to stand up for what's right anymore. And criminals and scumbags get a free pass, because it's not nice or progressive to judge someone on what they have done. Everyone, no matter what, should be treated equally. Well that's bogus.

You're so anxious to score points that you aren't thinking straight. I said nothing about giving "criminals and scumbags a free pass", nor did I say no one should ever be judged for his crimes. Where the f**k does that come from? All I said was that Assange's sexual behavior - criminal or not - has nothing to do with whether or not Wikileaks did the right thing when it published American military secrets.

Let's perform a little thought experiment here. A guy pulls a drowning child out of the river, and everybody claps the guy on the back and says he did a great thing. Two weeks later he's arrested for years of beating his wife. Does that mean that pulling the kid out of the water is now a bad thing? Would you go and throw the kid back in? You seem to think that I don't want the wife-beater to go to jail. Show me in my original post where I said anything about exonerating criminals.

I have no idea what kind of person Assange is. If he's guilty of rape or whatever, fine, throw his ass in prison - rapists are scum. But the Wikileaks thing has to be judged on its own merit. Is that too complex for you to get your head around?

Anyway, I think I know what's going on here. You seem to think Wikileaks shouldn't have published those documents, so you just take Assange's trouble with the Swedish police as somehow being vindication of your prior judgment. It's amazing how many people are incapable of seeing the flaw in this kind of circular reasoning.

btw, has it also escaped your attention that I haven't taken a position on the Wikileaks controversy?

quote: All I said was that Assange's sexual behavior - criminal or not - has nothing to do with whether or not Wikileaks did the right thing when it published American military secrets.

Well that's not even a debate. Of course they did the wrong thing. Are you insane? But I think that's the heart of this issue. Assange is viewed as some sort of hero or champion of rightness by a lunatic fringe on Daily Tech and the web, so he's defended. If he was a hum drum tax attorney or whatever, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the leaks were about anything else, nobody would care. It just so happens his leaks, in crazy peoples minds, are vindication. So they don't really care who does it or what kind of person is at the wheel.

quote: You seem to think Wikileaks shouldn't have published those documents, so you just take Assange's trouble with the Swedish police as somehow being vindication of your prior judgment.

Actually none of my arguments were based on this recent allegation. He's ALREADY a convicted criminal and dirtbag. It's not like I need MORE proof to back my opinions up.

Even if nobody has been killed yet because of his leaks, it's a known fact that he's taken an already volatile situation and made it worst. Lives HAVE been effected, that's not up for debate. His threat to release even more secrets, whatever the cost, shows what kind of person he is.

quote: btw, has it also escaped your attention that I haven't taken a position on the Wikileaks controversy?

You clearly have. I don't need you to spell it out for me when you've said it in so many words.

quote: You clearly have. I don't need you to spell it out for me when you've said it in so many words.

Now you're reading something into my words that just isn't there. Setting aside the question of whether or not we should even be fighting these wars - about that I have very strong opinions indeed - and limiting the discussion to the leaks, I can see that both sides have valid points and I really can't say where I stand on the issue. Sometimes life's like that.

However, character assassination is sleazy. If you want to weigh into the debate, keep to the point, what does Assange's willy have to do with anything?

(Actually, what I really want to talk about is John McCain's secret love-child with that black woman - does anybody have a pic of the mother and child?)

quote: You clearly have. I don't need you to spell it out for me when you've said it in so many words.

Now you're reading something into my words that just isn't there. Setting aside the question of whether or not we should even be fighting these wars - about that I have very strong opinions indeed - and limiting the discussion to the leaks, I can see that both sides have valid points and I really can't say where I stand on the issue. Sometimes life's like that.

However, character assassination is sleazy. If you want to weigh into the debate, keep to the point, what does Assange's willy have to do with anything?

(Actually, what I really want to talk about is John McCain's secret love-child with that black woman - does anybody have a pic of the mother and child?)

Let me put it in simpler terms, Most Americans don't trust there politicians to do the right ting all the time.Guise what, non Americans trust them even a lot less to do the right thing till them.

And these reports about the war in Afghanistan mean noting, what the US government is really shitting there pants over, is the State department cables.

If there is in it, what i think is in it, things like personal opinion's about other country's and leaders, that could hurt the US diplomatic relations really bad.

As for Wiki Leaks, I think there goals are honorably (to get rid of (government corruption), how they go about it, I don't know, most of what they put up was pretty good, on the Afghan reports they properly could have done a better job, doo.

And a site like Wiki Leaks could imo have a function to keep governments honest.I am still not sure if this will do it, and to be honest I think the criticism they got till now was deserved.

Hope they do the next time a better job in screening the information better before releasing.

quote: Assange is viewed as some sort of hero or champion of rightness by a lunatic fringe on Daily Tech and the web, so he's defended.

Hardly a fringe - hes won a few awards for his journalistic works, inlcuding one from the Economist. You could say he has more integrity than 99.9% of journalists working today, as he doesnt have to spin or doctor anything to please an audience – or an editor – at all. Hes exposed injustices all over the world - including the killing of two journalists in Iraq by a US helicopter. Its not hard to see why the US military wouldnt want THAT to be widely known - and would take any means necessary to discredit him.

Was publishing the Afghan documents the wrong thing to do? If it endangers the lives of good people, then yes. Another point worth noting - Wikileaks contacted the DoD for assistance in redacting the documents, so important identities would be protected. The requests were ignored.

But if it exposes injustice and cover ups as well? Harder to call. Do the ends justify the means?

So if there is a cover up of atrocities by US Soldiers why would they(the soldiers) report civilian causality numbers in the first place? Wouldn't they want to hide that fact? I mean they are all evil baby killers aren't they?